AUGUST 31, 2019
NEWS AND VIEWS
I DO LOVE COMMONDREAMS; AND YES, I HAVE GIVEN
THEM SMALL AMOUNTS OF MONEY FROM TIME TO TIME. SOME OF THE BEST NEWS SOURCES
HAVE SIMILAR REQUESTS FOR MONEY, SO I GLADLY DONATE; BUT THE CORPORATE PAPERS
LIKE THE WASHINGTON POST AND NEW YORK TIMES ASK FOR MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION FEES.
I CAN’T AFFORD THAT, AND I DO LIKE THE OFTEN BOLDER AND MORE SURPRISING
STATEMENTS THAT APPEAR IN THE SMALLER SOURCES. I DO SEEK CORROBORATING SOURCES
AND FACT CHECKS FOR SOME OF THOSE BECAUSE THEY DO SOUND A LITTLE TOO
INTERESTING, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ARTICLE JUST BELOW THIS ONE, YOU WILL SEE
THE NECESSITY TO FACT CHECK THE HIGHLY RESPECTED AND FINANCIALLY POWERFUL
WASHINGTON POST AND NEW YORK TIMES ALSO. SEE BELOW HOW HANDILY COMMONDREAMS DEALS
WITH THAT SOMETIMES BULLY THE WASHINGTON POST, FOR INSTANCE.
Published on
Saturday, August 31, 2019
by
Sanders
Campaign Demands Washington Post Retract 'Fact Check' of Medical Bankruptcies
Remarks
The letter came a day after two
researchers behind the study cited by the presidential hopeful published
an op-ed defending their findings
by
Photograph -- Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks while introducing healthcare legislation titled
the 'Medicare for All Act of 2019' during a news conference on Capitol Hill, on
April 9, 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
As Democratic presidential primary candidate
Sen. Bernie Sanders teased a proposal to cancel all past due medical
debt and address all future medical debt in the United States, his campaign
sent a letter Saturday to Washington Post executive editor
Marty Baron, demanding that the newspaper retract a controversial "fact check."
Since Wednesday, the Post has
come under fire for publishing a critical review of Sanders' citation of
a peer-reviewed editorial that ran in the American
Journal of Public Health (AJPH). Sanders had said earlier this month
that "500,000 people go bankrupt every year because they cannot pay their
outrageous medical bills" and "500,000 Americans will go bankrupt
this year from medical bills."
The Post's Salvador Rizzo
gave Sanders' recent remarks "three Pinocchios," a designation the
newspaper uses for statements that have a "significant factual error and/or
obvious contradictions." Despite handing down that rating, Rizzo noted
that when Dr. David U. Himmelstein—the editorial's lead author and a public
health professor at City University of New York's Hunter College—was asked by
the Post "whether Sanders was quoting his study
accurately, he said yes."
The Post's "fact check"
elicited criticism from not only members of the Sanders presidential campaign
but also other reporters and media outlets. Tim Dickinson wrote Thursday for Rolling Stone:
The process by which the Post fact
checker transmogrified a basically true statement into a ruling of
"mostly false" is a case study in the uselessness
of the political fact check as it is often practiced.
Subjecting political speechmaking to this
kind of nitpick is folly. The entire nature of the political enterprise is
looser than that. Politicians speak to broad systemic problems. If they're
sharp and persuasive, they have statistics at hand. And if their staff is any
good, those statistics have reputable studies to back them up. By any
meaningful measure what Sanders said is accurate for the purposes of the
project. If citing a study accurately enough to satisfy its author still gets a
"mostly false," it's hard to know what could possibly pass muster.
The Sanders
campaign's letter to the Post's executive editor, signed by senior adviser Warren Gunnels
and posted in full online, also highlighted other
recent "fact checks" from the newspaper that have been scrutinized, and requested that the Post commit
"to covering Senator Sanders in a fair, professional, and ethical manner that
finally starts honoring the most basic standards of accuracy."
Throughout
the week, Gunnels has debated the veracity of the Post's "fact
check" of the medical bankruptcies remarks with Glenn Kessler—editor and chief writer of The Fact Checker at the Post as
well as author of some of the other "fact checks" in
question—on Twitter. Their exchange included
a screenshot of a message to Post fact checker Rizzo from
researcher Himmelstein, who also requested the newspaper retract the piece.
On Friday, Himmelstein and Dr. Steffie
Woolhandler—another co-author of the AJPH editorial and Hunter
College professor—published an op-ed on the Sanders 2020 website entitled "Medical Bankruptcy
Is Real, Even if the Washington Post Refuses to Believe
It." Himmelstein and Woolhandler, founders of Physicians for a
National Health Program, are longtime advocates of adopting a single-payer
healthcare system in the United States.
In the op-ed, they provided some details
about the AJPH study and noted that "dozens of
politicians and publications (including the Post itself!) have cited that study as a reliable
source." Regarding the statistic at the center of the ongoing
controversy, Himmelstein and Woolhandler wrote that "even the 530,000
figure is an underestimate of the number of people affected by medical bankruptcies."
"Most bankruptcies involve more than one
person—an average of about 2.7 people, often including a spouse/partner and
children," they explained. "That means that the 750,000 bankruptcies
last year involved more than 2 million people. And even if you use the most
restrictive definition of medical bankruptcy—i.e. including only debtors who
'very much' agreed that medical bills were a cause of their bankruptcy—Sanders'
500,000 figure is, if anything, too low. The right number is more like three
quarters of a million."
Our work is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel
free to republish and share widely.
This is the
world we live in. This is the world we cover.
BERNIE 2020’S LETTER, DELIVERED SATURDAY
AUGUST 30 ACCORDING TO COMMON DREAMS REBUTTAL ARTICLE ABOVE.
A letter to Washington Post editor Marty
Baron details the newspaper's repeated inaccurate criticism of the Vermont
senator
In the last
two months, the Washington Post as repeatedly
published
factually
inaccurate“fact
check” articles about Bernie Sanders — and despite being publicly ridiculed
for these articles, the newspaper has never issued a correction or
retraction. The latest example is the most egregious — in its zealous attempt
to criticize Bernie, the newspaper ended up promoting inaccurate information
that wrongly defamed the work of a well-respected academic researcher. The
Bernie 2020 campaign today sent a letter to Washington Post editor Marty Baron
demanding a full retraction of the story. That letter is here:
Mr. Baron,
I am writing in
regards to the Washington Post Fact Checker’s Aug. 28 analysis,
headlined: “Sanders’s flawed statistic: 500,000 medical bankruptcies a year.”
We demand that the Post immediately issue a retraction and inform its readers
of this decision.
The overall
premise of the piece is absurd. The Post’s Fact Checker issued Senator Sanders
“three pinocchios” for accurately citing a peer-reviewed editorial published in
the American Journal of Public Health. The Post even notes that the author of
the editorial confirmed that Senator Sanders had accurately cited his work.
As Rolling
Stone pointed out: “To dole out Pinocchios for a good faith
effort to translate public health data into a stump speech is journalistically
obtuse.”
Furthermore,
the Post’s Fact Checker asserted: “The AJPH editorial did not undergo the same
peer-reviewed editing process as a research article.” This is also not true.
The Fact Checker has been informed of this error and has thus far refused to
correct it.
The AJPH told
the author of this editorial: "I have confirmed to the WaPo that your
editorial had been peer-reviewed. There has been some confusion here because
they approached us with a general question about editorials.” It is inaccurate
to claim that the AJPH editorial did not undergo a peer-review, based on a
general question from the Post’s Fact Checker about the standard editorial
process.
Let’s be
clear. The American Journal of Public Health is not the National Enquirer. It
is not a supermarket tabloid. It is one of the most widely respected and
prestigious medical journals in the country. Senator Sanders accurately cited a statistic that was published in
this distinguished public health journal. In what world does this merit one
so-called “pinocchio” let alone three? Further, this “three pinocchio” rating
isn’t just falsely attacking the veracity of Senator Sanders and misleading the
public on one of the most serious problems facing the American people. It is
also tarnishing the reputation of the author of the editorial who went to great
lengths to have it reviewed by his peers, who believes “your false claim” has
“besmirched” his “reputation as a scholar,” and who is also demanding a
retraction.
Unfortunately,
this latest Fact Checker article is part of a much broader pattern of bias
against Senator Sanders.
On June
27th, the Washington Post published a “fact check” story by Glenn Kessler
about Senator Sanders correctly stating that “millions of Americans are forced
to work two or three jobs just to survive.” Kessler asserted that the claim was
“misleading” even though he admitted “Bureau of Labor Statistics
data shows that nearly 8 million people hold more than
one job.” To be clear: 8 million Americans are accurately described by Senator
Sanders as “millions of Americans” -- and yet Kessler’s false assertion that this
statement of fact was “misleading” was never retracted or corrected by the
Washington Post.
Similarly, on June 28th, the Washington Post
published another “fact check” by Mr. Kessler about Senator Sanders correctly stating
that three people own more wealth than the bottom half of the country. Kessler
acknowledged that Senator Sanders’ statement was “based on numbers that add
up.” However, he then asserted that because “people in the bottom half have
essentially no wealth” the “comparison is not especially meaningful” --
which is not merely subjective and tendentious, but also totally inaccurate.
The fact that three people own so much wealth while tens of millions have
absolutely no wealth is especially meaningful to working class
Americans who are struggling to make ends meet.
These are just
a few of the most recent examples of Mr. Kessler’s blatantly obvious bias
against Senator Sanders.
The Washington
Post says it adheres to the highest journalistic standards of objectivity,
fairness and accuracy. If that is the case, why does the Post’s editorial
leadership allow the Fact Checker to regularly, baselessly disparage Senator
Sanders with smears that are demonstrably inaccurate? And why has the Post’s
editorial leadership not corrected or retracted these smears when they are
proven false?
We hope that
you will address the Fact Checker’s inappropriate coverage of Senator Sanders
-- first by immediately retracting this most recent piece, and then by
committing the newspaper to covering Senator Sanders in a fair, professional
and ethical manner that finally starts honoring the most basic standards of
accuracy.
We look forward
to hearing your immediate response to this request.
Sincerely,
Warren Gunnels
Senior Advisor,
Bernie 2020
HERE IS BERNIE ON INTERNATIONAL NEWS, ON
WHICH SOME HAVE SAID HE IS WEAK. SANDERS SPEAKS WELL OF CHINA, JUST AS TRUMP
HAS DONE, BUT THE DNC AND FOX WILL PROBABLY CRUCIFY BERNIE FOR IT. TOO BAD.
WHEN GOOD WORDS ARE SAID TO BE EVIL, IT IS A SIGN OF THE FURTHER DEGRADING OF
OUR CULTURE.
Sanders:
China has done more to address extreme poverty 'than any country in the history
of civilization'
RISING
8/27/2019
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
offered praise for China while stating in an interview that he believed the
U.S. could have a positive relationship with the country, saying it had
made "more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the
history of civilization."
The Democratic
presidential candidate offered a nuanced view of Beijing, criticizing it for a
move toward authoritarianism and stating that it looked out for its own
interests first, but also saying it had made progress in helping its own
people over the last several decades.
"China
is a country that is moving unfortunately in a more authoritarian way in a
number of directions,” Sanders told Hill.TV’s Krystal Ball. "But what we
have to say about China in fairness to China and it’s leadership is if I’m not
mistaken they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any
country in the history of civilization, so they’ve done a lot of things for
their people.”
Sanders said
the the [sic] United States would have "hoped that they would move toward
a more Democratic form of government," and criticized China
for "moving in the opposite direction."
Beijing has come under criticism recently for
battles between police and demonstrators in the semi-autonomous city of Hong
Kong.
At the same time, Sanders said he did not
believe China represented an "existential threat" to the United
States.
"Their
economy now is struggling but I think it is absolutely possible for us to have
a positive working relationship with China," said Sanders, who has been
battling with former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
for support in the Democratic primary.
President Trump has
imposed steep tariffs on Chinese imports and has threatened to impose more.
Beijing has responded with its own tariffs on U.S. exports. The trade war has
deepened worries about the global economy, while triggering gyrations in U.S.
and foreign markets.
Sanders once
again emphasized his stance against “unfettered free trade,” and his opposition
to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he says treats U.S.
companies unfairly.
“What I said then and what I said now is
trade is extremely important but you cannot have unfettered free trade written
by large corporations and their CEOs, you need trade agreements that are
designed to work for working families,” he told Hill.TV.
Sanders has stated that even though he
doesn't agree with Trump's approach to China, he also that he wouldn't rule out using tariffs if he became president. He told
CNN's "State of the Union" over the weekend that they should only be
used in a "rational way within the context of a broad, sensible trade
policy."
—Tess Bonn
THIS IS ANOTHER OF THOSE WASHINGTON POST PSYCHOLOGICAL
DOWNER ARTICLES COMMISSIONED BY THE DNC. THE USE OF WORDS IN THOSE FIRST TWO
PARAGRAPHS IS PAINTING A PICTURE OF NEAR VIOLENCE – CRAMMED INTO, HAD ERUPTED, SHOUTED
FROM THE BACK OF THE ROOM. APPARENTLY APPLAUSE FOR SANDERS WHICH IS
“ENTHUSIASTIC,” FOR WAPO IS “RAUCOUS.” IMAGINE BEING SENT INTO THE GYM FOR A
PEP RALLY IN HIGH SCHOOL AND BEING TOLD NOT TO MAKE NOISE. I WONDER IF THE
PUBLIC OR THE LIBRARY STAFF COMPLAINED. IF NOT, I DON’T SEE THE PROBLEM. WHAT,
I WONDER, IS THE PURPOSE OF A “COMMUNITY ROOM” IN A LIBRARY, AND WHETHER THEY
ARE PROPERLY SOUNDPROOFED TO HANDLE SUCH A FUNCTION?
IT SADDENS ME THAT A PAPER LIKE THE
WASHINGTON POST, FOR WHICH I HAVE IN THE PAST HAD CONSIDERABLE RESPECT, IS
WANDERING INTO THE AREA OF “YELLOW JOURNALISM” AND CHEAP SHOTS. IF THEY ARE
PUBLICALLY CORRECTED OFTEN ENOUGH, MAYBE THEY WILL MEND THEIR WAYS.
WHAT IS PASSION TO SOME IS FANATICISM TO
OTHERS, AND SOME AT WAPO WANT TO SEE THAT A DISTASTEFUL OR EVEN DANGEROUS IMAGE
STICKS IN THE MINDS OF AS MANY VOTERS AS POSSIBLE. AFTER ALL, “DEMOCRATIC
SOCIALISTS” ARE DANGEROUS PEOPLE. SANDERS, ON THE OTHER HAND, OCCASIONALLY
FIGHTS BACK, BUT MOSTLY HE KEEPS PUTTING OUT MORE PLANS FOR PRODUCING RESULTS,
HOSTING SMALLER GATHERINGS AS WELL AS THE LARGE RALLIES, AND HAS BEEN HAVING
MORE INTERVIEWS. THAT’S GOOD, BECAUSE HE DOES WELL IN INTERVIEWS AND HAD BEEN
CRITICIZED BEFORE FOR LACK OF DETAIL IN HIS PROPOSITIONS AS OPPOSED TO WARREN.
WAPO CLEARLY INTENDS FOR THE BERNIE
SUPPORTERS THEMSELVES TO COME TO VIEW HIM AS BEING INFERIOR TO THE SEEMINGLY MORE
CULTURED DNC STANDARDS, AND MEANS TO CONVINCE US THAT BERNIE IS A NO GO, A
FOOLISH LOSER. “BERNIE SANDERS’S
SUPPORTERS FIND ANGER NOT AS COMPELLING THIS TIME AROUND.” ANGER IS NOT THE CENTER OF HIS MESSAGE, SO MUCH
AS THE NEED FOR REFORM AND A RENEWED PATH TOWARD A GOOD LIFE FOR ALL OF THE
PEOPLE, NOT JUST A SMALL FRACTION OF THE POPULATION. THAT IS A BATTLE THAT
NEEDS TO BE FOUGHT, AND IF MUSTERING UP SOME “ANGER” IS NECESSARY FOR THAT,
THEN SO BE IT. I LIKE SANDERS ANSWER TO MITT ROMNEY DESCRIBED AT THE END OF
THIS ARTICLE: “WHY DOESN’T THAT ANGER YOU?”
FIRST, I QUESTION WHETHER THE PEOPLE, THAT
YUUGE NUMBER OF THEM, WHOM THE WAPO INTERVIEWED WERE ACTUALLY FORMER SANDERS
SUPPORTERS AT ALL, SINCE THE REPORTER RECRUITED THEM AT A SENATOR WARREN
GET-TOGETHER. SOME OF THEM STATED OUTRIGHTLY THAT THEY WERE FORMERLY CLINTON
SUPPORTERS, ONE A FORMER BILL CLINTON WORKER, AND HE GIVES NO STATISTICS
SHOWING THE LARGE GAP BETWEEN SANDERS 2016 SUPPORT AND THAT FOR 2020. SHOW ME
NUMBERS. MOREOVER, I HAVE FAITH IN HIS STRENGTH AND IN HIS MESSAGE; SO I’M
STILL WITH HIM.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, I WANT WHAT HE WANTS NOT
BECAUSE HE SAID IT BUT BECAUSE I GREW UP BELIEVING THAT THOSE THINGS ARE THE
AMERICAN WAY. SO, I TOO AM DEEPLY PISSED AT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S FALL FROM
GRACE AS UPHOLDERS OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, AND THEIR APPROACH AND ATTITUDE
TOWARD DECIDING AN ELECTION. IT WAS A DISGUSTING FARCE. THEY MADE SOME CHANGES
TO THAT, YES, BUT THEY HAVEN’T MADE ENOUGH. THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE PREPACKAGED
LEADERS.
THE COUNTRY NEEDS PEOPLE OF STRENGTH AND
OPENNESS TO ALL PEOPLES AND ALL CLASSES, WITH PROGRESS BEING THE STANDARD
RATHER THAN THE PARTICULAR STATUS QUO THAT WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY. WE
HAVE FAILED IN SO MANY WAYS, AND WE CAN DO BETTER. IT ISN’T IMPOSSIBLE; IT JUST
TAKES SOME INTESTINAL FORTITUDE. WE STILL HAVE THE BLACK AND HISPANIC VOTE
BEING SUPPRESSED IN STATE AFTER STATE. IT’S OBSCENE. THERE IS NEED FOR ENOUGH “ANGER”
TO CAUSE MEANINGFUL ACTION TO OCCUR. LYING DOWN BEFORE DONALD TRUMP AND BARING
OUR THROATS ISN’T THE WAY TO BEAT HIM.
SENATOR BERNARD SANDERS IS SUCH A MAN OF
HONESTY, IDEAS AND STRENGTH. PERFECT, NO, I’M SURE HE’S NOT, BUT HE’S THE BEST
WE’VE SEEN IN YEARS. I DON’T GIVE UP UNTIL THE END HAS COME ONCE I’M COMMITTED,
UNLESS SANDERS HIMSELF DOES IMPLODE PSYCHOLOGICALLY OR COMMIT A GRAVE ERROR,
AND I DON’T FORESEE THAT HAPPENING.
Bernie
Sanders’s supporters find anger not as compelling this time around
By Hailey Fuchs
August 30,
2019 at 6:00 AM
PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks during the Democratic National Committee’s summer
meeting Aug. 23 in San Francisco. Three years ago, his supporters assailed the
committee for allegedly rigging the electoral process in Hillary Clinton’s
favor. (Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images)
LAS VEGAS
— One scorching Saturday afternoon in July, some 70
supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) crammed into a community
room at a library here for one of the campaign’s
organizing sessions. The event, a reunion fraught with both anger and nostalgia
for the last presidential cycle, was just a few miles from where the senator’s supporters
had erupted during the state’s contentious 2016 party
convention.
“We were not
defeated. We were cheated!” shouted one woman from the back of the room.
“Who’s a little
bit angry? . . . Who’s ready to get to work?” a campaign staffer asked the
crowd, questions met with raucous applause. Among those shouting
loudest was Marcia Armstrong, a 63-year-old who lives in nearby Henderson
and works in customer service for a property management company. She said she was trying find [sic] some
positivity and motivation in her frustration, but others — who believe the
electoral process was rigged by the Democratic National
Committee three years ago — were less optimistic.
“I think they’re just fed up with the whole
system, and some of them feel that nothing can be done to change it. I
disagree,” she said. “I try to be positive.”
In 2016,
Sanders and his supporters shared a visceral anger at the nation’s economic
and political systems, which they contended had been corrupted by wealthy
capitalists. Hillary Clinton proved the perfect foe for an
anti-establishment campaign then. But with a sitting president who has also used anger to galvanize his
base and claims to represent the antithesis of the Washington elite,
some now find that aggressive messaging unappealing.
The overall
dynamics also have shifted. During the 2016 presidential cycle, the independent
senator stood alone in his — oftentimes cantankerous and rowdy — fight
for a single-payer health-care system, tuition-free four-year public college
and a $15 minimum wage. Several presidential hopefuls have fully embraced his
once-radical ideas without adopting his boisterous tone.
During a spat
between Sanders and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) on the debate stage in July over how
best to curb greenhouse gas emissions, Ryan told the senator from Vermont, “You
don’t have to yell.” Ryan’s campaign was quick to use the moment as a marketing
ploy, with new stickers: “You Don’t Have to Yell: Tim Ryan 2020.”
For voters who
yearn for the institutional change Sanders shepherded in during the 2016
campaign but who are turned off by his tenor, there are now options. Interviews with dozens of Democratic
voters in Washington, California, New Hampshire and
Nevada showed that many former Sanders loyalists are now
playing the field for their 2020 vote.
Jonathan Eren,
a 34-year-old software engineer from Seattle who supported Sanders in 2016,
felt “cheated” when the DNC gave the nomination to Clinton. Now, Sanders is
back on the campaign trail, but Eren no longer stands behind him.
“I just feel
[Sen. Elizabeth] Warren has more of a better understanding of it all,”
he said of the Massachusetts Democrat as he perched not far from the
stage where Warren would soon address 15,000 rallygoers at a park in
Seattle, her biggest event to date. Sanders beat Clinton in the Washington
caucus by nearly a 50-point margin in 2016.
The two
senators from New England, longtime pals who share a common enemy in Wall
Street, find themselves more similar than different when it comes to
policy goals, such as Medicare-for-all and student loan debt forgiveness,
as well as a message of revolution and “structural change.”
Supporters cheers [sic] as Sanders speaks to Iowa State Fair attendees Aug. 11 in Des Moines. Sanders’s polling numbers in early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire have dropped dramatically since 2016. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)
Where the
candidates — Sanders a democratic socialist
and Warren a proud capitalist — diverge is in the tenor of
their campaigns.
“It’s not as
though [Warren is] content to thunder against the evildoers like an Old
Testament prophet. That’s much more his mode,” said William Galston, a
senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former domestic policy adviser
to President Bill Clinton. “Sanders sees [his campaign] as a revolutionary
mass movement to upset the established order. While Senator Warren is
obviously very dissatisfied with the status quo, she describes her campaign in
very different terms and terms that I think are less scary.”
Many Democratic
voters who were once attracted to Sanders’s anti-establishment message believe
that the nominee ought to have a vision of unification to beat Trump in
2020.
Andrew Bauld, a
34-year-old writer who lives in Brooklyn, said that he initially liked
Sanders in part because he did not believe there should be a presumptive
candidate, but that his enthusiasm for the senator from Vermont faded even
before the 2016 primaries ended.
Exiting a house
party for the Warren campaign in Wolfeboro, N.H. earlier this month, Bauld
said he was tired of the Sanders’s combative tone.
“He brings it
from ‘I’m gonna yell about it, and I’m angry,’ ” he said, adding that Sanders did
not do enough to unite Democratic voters behind Clinton in the 2016
general election. “Senator Warren has similar ideas but brings it in an
exciting package.”
Nicholas
Mathews, a 33-year-old self-employed barber from Bremerton, Wash., said he
supported Sanders during the 2016 primary but
did not vote. Though he said his friends are split 50-50 between Sanders
and Warren, he is now partial to the senator from Massachusetts, in part
because her messaging feels “softer.”
Sanders’s
approach “is a little more aggressive, and not in a ‘take stance’ sort
of way, [but] in a ‘take him down’ kind of way,” he said. “He had his time.”
Sanders’s polling numbers in early-voting states
such as Iowa and New Hampshire — where in 2016 he battled Clinton to a
near draw and won, respectively — have
dropped dramatically. Meanwhile, he continues to face pushback from former
Clinton supporters.
Barbara
Underwood, an 87-year-old retired state legislator who lives in Sugar Hill,
N.H., said she supported Clinton in both the 2016 primary and general
elections. She argued
that Sanders is partly responsible for Clinton’s defeat — a
characterization that Sanders and his allies heatedly deny — and
questioned whether he did enough to rally his supporters behind the
Democratic Party’s eventual nominee. She worries that he could
cost Democrats the upcoming election.
“I figure he was a spoiler in the last election,”
Underwood said. “I think a lot of people that would’ve — maybe should’ve —
voted for Clinton voted for Bernie, and that split the vote . . . I sort of
hold it against him, having done it once, maybe going to do it again.”
But many Sanders supporters resent the
presumption that they were responsible for Clinton’s shortcomings.
They remain angry at Clinton and other members of
the establishment who they claim rigged the system against
Sanders. The candidate and his campaign have leaned into that
sentiment, lambasting the media for coverage they deem unfair and
publishing an “anti-endorsement” list of big-money business executives and a
centrist think tank opposing his candidacy.
While Sanders faces criticism for his
oftentimes incendiary speeches and comments, many of his supporters see
his heated tone as a mark of authenticity and dependability over a
decades-long career in public office. Jennifer Convery, a 53-year-old
kindergarten teacher from Gorham, N.H., who attended a Sanders town hall nearby,
said the campaign’s signature anger is, in part, what makes Sanders seem
stronger than other candidates in his beliefs.
“He’s mad, and you gotta be mad,” she said.
“In order for things to change, there’s got to be some anger and frustration to
get it done. I like Bernie’s passion. You can hear it when he talks. It’s
coming from the heart.”
But the Sanders
supporter is concerned that her candidate will fall short of the nomination
once again. She worries that his age — 77 — will be used against him,
and that other voters may be drawn to a candidate who offers the
appeal of diversity.
Convery was not
quite sure how Sanders could expand his voting bloc.
“He reaches out
as much as anybody else as much as he can. He’s not going to change who he
is and how he is, so he can’t make himself younger or black or a woman, so I
don’t know,” she said. “What do you do? You’re not going to change your
points.”
Sanders sees
his signature ire as a point of pride. At the end of the day, the campaign is
betting on the strategy to prove his consistency.
After Sen.
Mitt Romney (R-Utah) questioned in a tweet why the Vermont senator was so
angry, Sanders responded with the slight, “I’m
angry because multi-millionaires like you and Trump have rigged our economy at
the middle class’ expense. I’m angry because millions are living paycheck to
paycheck. I’m angry because 34 million Americans are uninsured.”
He asked the Republican senator, just as his
campaign asks Democratic voters, “Why doesn’t that anger you?”
A NEWS REPORT EARLIER TODAY SAID THAT DORIAN
IS TURNING NORTHWARD, BUT WE ARE STILL IN THE POTENTIAL PATH, OR “CONE OF
UNCERTAINTY.” THAT SOUNDS SO POETIC, LIKE KISMET. HURRICANES AND TORNADOES CAN
DO ANYTHING THEY DARNED WELL PLEASE. I THINK WE’RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE SAFE,
BUT I AM DELIGHTED THAT OUR APARTMENTS ARE PREPARED TO TAKE US TO SHELTERS FOR
THE DURATION.
Will Hurricane Dorian hit Jacksonville?
Here’s what we know right now
By DAVID SCHUTZ
SOUTH FLORIDA SUN SENTINEL |
AUG 30, 2019 | 12:04 PM
Jacksonville,
Florida, is in the forecast cone of probability for Hurricane
Dorian and could begin seeing tropical storm-force winds this
weekend, according to the 11 a.m. update from the National Hurricane Center.
In recent
hours, the storm’s forward speed has slowed down, making the path difficult to
predict. As of 11 a.m. Friday, the hurricane center said Dorian’s target was
centered on northern Palm Beach County.
Dorian is also
strengthening and will likely grow to a category 4 hurricane before making
landfall.
All of Florida
is in the cone of uncertainty and the storm, the slowing speed means that
although tropical storm-force winds will likely be felt over the weekend,
landfall may not happen until Tuesday.
Changes in the
forecast track are typical this early out — and that forecast
track will likely continue to fluctuate. Even harder to predict
this early, meteorologists say, is how strong the storm will be.
According to
the hurricane center, tropical storm-force winds could start hitting parts of
Florida on Saturday.
Still, some European tracks show an outside
chance that Dorian will curl and head north, hugging the coast rather than
making landfall in Florida.
Tropical Storm
Dorian forecast track
Our storm
coverage is being updated regularly. Click
here to have breaking news alerts sent directly to your
inbox.
South Florida
Sun Sentinel
CONTACT
David Schutz
joined the Sun Sentinel in 2012 and is the assistant managing editor and
creative director. Previously, he was deputy design director and graphics editor
at the Boston Globe and design director of the Boston Business Journal. A
native of Littleton, Colo., he graduated from the School of Journalism at
Northeastern University in Boston.
INTERVIEW WITH VICE NEWS TONIGHT
Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Think He Missed His
Moment In 2016
6:32 DURATION
NOW THIS FROM THE ATLANTIC IS AN INTERESTING
VIEWPOINT. IT ENTERTAININGLY LAYS OUT SOME OF THE RANGE OF SOCIALLY CONCERNED
IDEAS. I SAY IT THAT WAY BECAUSE THE MOST CRASS, GREEDY, AND CLASS-CONSCIOUS
PEOPLE ARE SIMPLY NOT “SOCIALLY CONCERNED” AT ALL. THEY CONCUR WITH RHETT
BUTLER IN HIS FAMOUS WORDS, “FRANKLY SCARLET, I DON’T GIVE A DAMN.”
The People
Who Think Bernie Is Moderate
To socialist candidates, even the left-most
Democrat isn’t left enough.
AUG 29, 2019
Staff writer at The Atlantic
PHOTOGRAPH -- SCOTT
MORGAN / REUTERS
Senator
Elizabeth Warren wants new taxes on wealth. Senator Bernie Sanders wants
Medicare for All. Senator Cory Booker wants guaranteed jobs. Jeff Mackler wants
the elimination of the military budget, the nationalization of the energy and
banking industries, open borders, the creation of a state-run health-care
system, and the end of capitalism in the United States.
A member of the Trotskyist party Socialist
Action, Mackler is one of a handful of true, full-fat, no-joke socialist
candidates running or considering running for president in 2020. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell looks
at the Democratic primary and sees the proposed Cubafication of the country;
Mackler looks at it and sees neoliberal
accommodationism.* “Bernie gets a little attention when he says
things like, ‘Three people in the United States control half the wealth in the
country,’” he told me with a chuckle.
“He has no proposal to change that in any way!”
Between
McConnell and Mackler, the latter probably has the better argument. Historians
and political scientists—and socialists themselves—make the point that although
the left has moved to the left, there is still a lot of left left to the left.
Progressives have become more progressive, and Nordic-model policies more
popular; membership in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has boomed. But socialism—real socialism, meaning
worker collectives and the nationalization of critical industries and the end
of the free-enterprise model? In the presidential race, nobody is even talking
about it.
Save for
Mackler and people like him. The Oakland-based candidate is gearing up for his
2020 campaign for the White House, with planned rallies and meetings from
Kentucky to Maine. “We don’t expect to win. We’re going to be write-in
candidates in maybe a dozen states,” he said. “But we will win if we build our party.”
In Florida,
Elijah Manley, a college student, activist, and former staffer for Senator Mike
Gravel’s 2020 bid, is also running a socialist protest campaign. A member of
the Green Party and the Sociali st Party of the United States of America
(SPUSA), Manley told me that his goal is to talk about justice wherever and
however he can. “A lot of that comes from my background—there are issues that
as a black person from the South and a queer person, I don’t think are
reflected in politics,” he said, also citing the need for more focus on
generational justice and the rights and representation of young people.
His campaigning has involved delineating his
policy preferences, building a social-media presence, and going on Fox News to
represent the socialist perspective. “One of the commentators said that people
buying avocado toast at Starbucks is why they are poor,” he said, adding that
he got a more receptive response on the channel than he imagined.
These candidates differ from the Democrats on
policy, putting forward far, far more sweeping proposals than even Sanders has. Mackler
scoffed at Warren’s plan to tax fortunes over $50 million at 2 percent a year,
recalling a time he suggested a 100 percent levy on income over $150,000 a year.
Manley said he supports proposals like Medicare for All and free college
tuition, but nevertheless wants to keep workers controlling the means of
production as a north star. “I’m not the type of person to attack other
people on the left,” he said. “But those policies aren’t socialism.”
Monica
Moorehead, the once and perhaps future presidential candidate for the Workers World Party, supports
reparations, guaranteeing all Americans a decent standard of living, and ending
the carceral state. “We see this as class struggle,” she told me. “Are you on
the side of the bosses and the bankers who exploit workers around the world? Or
are you on the side of working people, including people of color?” Within
that class struggle, the socialists’ goal is not to hem in capitalism’s
excesses, as Democrats largely want to do, but to end the hegemony of
capitalism.
Of course, for many Republicans and
conservative commentators, everyone from Manley to Joe Biden represents a
socialist threat. “We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country. IF YOU
ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE!,” the president tweeted in July. McConnell has used the term to bash Democrats’ voting-rights legislation, the Green New
Deal, Medicare for All, and expanding statehood to Puerto Rico and the District
of Columbia, repeatedly expressing shock that the Democrats want to destroy
free enterprise.
This is an old rhetorical move, not a serious
piece of contemporary political analysis. As the Cornell historian Lawrence
Glickman, the author of a new book on free enterprise, has pointed out, Republicans have termed whatever the Democrats have wanted as
“socialism” and whomever they choose to run as a “socialist” regularly since
the New Deal. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis: all
socialists.
“The key is the binary framing, freedom or
free enterprise on one side, and any modification of that is deemed socialism
on the other,” Glickman told me. “If you mess with with free
enterprise, you will ultimately get through the slippery-slope process to what
they posit as socialism. And socialism is more often a code word for New
Deal liberalism and its descendants than actual socialism.”
Indeed, the country’s binary politics elide
much of the nuance that exists on the left in other countries. Democrats have
moved toward what is elsewhere often called “social democracy,” meaning a mixed
economy with a robust welfare state. “It’s a term that’s common in Europe that’s never taken off here,”
explains Michael Kazin, a historian at
Georgetown and a longtime activist on the left. “That’s what Bernie Sanders
is. Certainly, he’d be right at home in the Labour Party in Britain.”
Further to the left lies democratic socialism, which supports social ownership
of the economy itself.
But these
separations are not clean; the lines between social democrats and democratic
socialists and progressives and New Deal Democrats are drawn and erased and
redrawn over and over again. Making the whole thing more confusing is the fact
that Sanders describes himself as a
democratic socialist, not a proponent of social democracy. Making it even
more confusing is the fact that the country’s most popular and influential
socialist organization—the DSA’s
membership has swelled to nearly 60,000, from just a few thousand a few years
ago—endorses Democratic candidates, including Barack Obama and Sanders.
The decision is
tactical, Kazin says, and serves to expand the DSA’s influence and the
influence of socialist ideas. “Given we have a zero-sum political system and
given the fact that the two parties are quite ideologically opposed now, I think a third party on the left would be
suicide,” he told me. “It would just help Republicans, as Jill Stein did in
2016.”
Members of Socialist Action, the SPUSA, and
other third parties see it differently, arguing that the Democratic Party is
irredeemably compromised and that voters deserve true alternatives. “Nothing
ever changes without independent mass struggle—independent of the two parties,
which both represent, fundamentally, the interests of the rich,” Moorehead
told me. “We can’t have a kinder, gentler capitalism.”
The socialists’ campaigns and socialist
parties might not be popular. But that idea surely is, as evidenced by
Sanders’s success, the populist drift of all the Democratic candidates, and the
popularity of proposals like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. Come
2020, there won’t be a socialist in the White House. But there might be some
socialism.
We want to
hear what you think about this article. Submit a
letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.
ANNIE LOWREY is
a staff writer at The Atlantic, where she covers economic policy.
THIS PARTICULAR MASSIVE FAILURE OF JUSTICE TO
PERFORM AT ALL HAPPENS OVER AND OVER. WHERE WE FIND ONE CASE, THERE ARE
HUNDREDS OF OTHERS WHOSE IDENTITIES HAVEN’T BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT. THE REASONS
ARE COMPLEX AND FRANKLY, DISCOURAGING, BUT IF WE DON’T KEEP TRYING TO IMPROVE
THE AMERICAN MINDSET THE CASES WILL CONTINUE. WE NEED TO STOP FIGHTING THE
CIVIL WAR AND LOOK STEADFASTLY TO THE FUTURE, LIKE THE CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS OF
THE GREAT ENGLISH HYMN BY THE REVEREND SABINE BARING-GOULD, AN ANGLICAN PRIEST. THERE IS GOOD AND EVIL, AND THEY
ARE RIGHT HERE AMONG US.
He was sentenced to life in prison decades
ago after stealing $50. Now he's set to walk free
By Harmeet Kaur,
CNN
Updated 8:34 AM ET, Fri August 30, 2019
(CNN)A 22-year-old man in Alabama was sentenced to
life in prison in the 1980s after he stole about $50 from a bakery. After more
than three decades behind bars, he is now set to walk free.
As a judge in
Alabama sentenced Alvin Kennard to time served on Wednesday, video from the
courtroom showed his family raising their fists into the air.
"All of us
cried. All of us cried," Patricia Jones, Kennard's niece, told CNN affiliate WBRC.
In 1979,
Kennard pleaded guilty to three counts of second-degree burglary in connection
with a break-in at a gas station, AL.com reported. He was given a suspended sentence of three
years and was put on probation.
Then in 1983,
Kennard was convicted of first-degree robbery after wielding a knife and
stealing about $50 from a bakery, according to WBRC.
Under Alabama's
Habitual Felony Offender Act, more commonly known as the "three strikes
law," that crime got him life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Court records
show he was incarcerated at a state prison in Bessemer, Alabama.
In 2013, the
Alabama Sentencing Commission adopted new guidelines that allowed the judge to
revisit the circumstances of Kennard's case.
Carla Crowder,
executive director of the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice,
represented Kennard at the hearing, according to CNN affiliate WIAT. She argued that if her client had been
sentenced today, he would have received a maximum sentence of about 20 years,
the station reported.
The judge has
to file paperwork with the Alabama Department of Corrections before Kennard is
released, so it's unclear when exactly he will come home.
But as for
what's next, Jones said Kennard's family will be there for him in this next
phase of his life.
"We'll
just sit down and talk to him and see what he wants to do," Jones told
WBRC, adding that Kennard says he wants to get a job. "He wants to support
himself and we're going to support him."
I’M PUTTING THIS IN JUST TO SHOW THAT BERNIE
SANDERS IS WORLD NEWS. THIS IS FROM REUTERS. THE DNC, OF COURSE, “FRANKLY
DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN.” THEY’LL STILL FIGHT HIM EVERY INCH OF THE WAY TO THE
CONVENTION JUST LIKE LAST TIME. THAT DOESN’T MEAN THE WE SHOULDN’T KEEP TRYING
UNTIL THE END.
AUGUST 31, 2019 / 2:58 PM / UPDATED 3 HOURS
AGO
Bernie
Sanders proposes canceling $81 billion U.S. medical debt
PHOTOGRAPH -- FILE
PHOTO: 2020 Democratic U.S. presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Bernie
Sanders speaks during a campaign event in West Branch, Iowa, U.S., August 19,
2019. REUTERS/Al Drago/File Photo
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
- U.S. presidential contender Bernie Sanders proposed a plan on Saturday to
cancel $81 billion in existing past-due medical debt for Americans, but offered
no details on how it would be financed.
Sanders, an
independent U.S. senator from Vermont, said in a statement that under his plan,
the government would negotiate and pay
off past-due medical bills that have been reported to credit agencies. The
proposal, he said, would also repeal
some elements of the 2005 Bankruptcy reform bill and allow other existing and
future medical debt to be discharged.
“In the United
States of America, your financial life and future should not be destroyed
because you or a member of your family gets sick,” said Sanders. “That is
unacceptable. I am sick and tired of seeing over 500,000 Americans declare
bankruptcy each year because they cannot pay off the outrageous cost of a
medical emergency or a hospital stay.”
According to Sanders, medical debt is the
leading cause of consumer bankruptcy, with more than half a million Americans
filing due to medical expenses each year. He said the 2005 Bankruptcy reform
bill made it difficult to discharge medical debt by imposing strict means tests
and eliminated fundamental consumer protections for Americans.
“It also trapped families with medical debt
in long-term poverty, mandated that they pay for credit counseling before
filing for bankruptcy, and increased the need for expensive legal services when
filing a case for medical bankruptcy,” the senator said.
Sanders is
seeking the Democratic nomination, along with more than a dozen other
candidates, for the right to challenge Republican President Donald Trump in
November 2020.
Reporting By
Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Dan Grebler
Our
Standards:The
Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
YES, I KNOW THERE ARE THREE ARTICLES ON THE
SAME SUBJECT OF THE PROPOSED PLAN TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE MEDICAL DEBT. THEY ALL
HAVE SOMETHING USEFUL TO ADD, AND ARE WELL-CONSIDERED IN MY VIEW. FOR US WHO
ARE GETTING OLDER AND DO HAVE MEDICAL DEBT AND ONGOING HEALTH ISSUES, AND FOR
THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF MEDICAL CARE, THESE MEDICAL PROPOSALS OF SANDERS’ ARE THE
MOST IMPORTANT PART OF HIS PLANS, THOUGH FREE COLLEGE TUITION IN THE LONG RUN
MAY BE THE MOST TRANSFORMATIVE FOR OUR NATION. WHEN PEOPLE CAN’T GET AHEAD IN
LIFE NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY TRY, THEY BECOME ANGRY, BITTER AND SCARED. THAT’S
WHERE THE TRUMP FOLLOWING IS COMING FROM I DO BELIEVE.
I DON’T WANT TO OFFEND ANY READERS BY SAYING
THIS, BUT AMERICA HAS NEVER PRODUCED A LARGE NUMBER OF WELL-EDUCATED PEOPLE, CAUSING
US TO DO THINGS LIKE BELIEVE, ACTUALLY BELIEVE, RIDICULOUS AND DANGEROUS CONSPIRACY
THEORIES; AND I THINK THAT THE HIGH COST OF GOING TO SCHOOL BEYOND THE
SECONDARY LEVEL IS THE PRIMARY REASON. MOST PEOPLE, IF THEY WILL SIT DOWN AND
READ WITH THE INTENTION OF LEARNING, CAN SUCCEED.
PEOPLE, WHEN THEY RUN INTO TOO MANY ROADBLOCKS
ON MAKING AN ACTUAL ATTEMPT TO SUCCEED IN THE WORLD, TEND TO SIMPLY TURN AWAY
FROM CONCRETE SUCCESS AND SETTLE ON THINGS THAT LOOK EASIER TO ACCOMPLISH – TAKING
A DEADEND JOB, GAMBLING, AND GETTING CAUGHT UP IN GET RICH QUICK SCHEMES, FOR
INSTANCE. PEOPLE WHO CAN THINK WELL WON’T BE NEARLY AS LIKELY TO DO THAT. I
THINK THIS IS HOW THE “PERMANENT UNDERCLASS” IS CREATED, NOT THEIR SKIN COLOR,
THOUGH, YES. I AM WELL AWARE OF THE “INTERSECTIONALITY” ISSUES, BUT THEY
SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO STOP AN INDIVIDUAL’S PROGRESS AS A PERSON. EXCUSES ARE
THE WORST KIND OF DISABILITY, BECAUSE THEY STOP US FROM TRYING.
Sanders
previews plan to cancel all past-due medical debt
BY TAL AXELROD - 08/31/19
08:44 AM EDT
VIDEO -- Sanders
says he's working on a plan to eliminate billions in medical debt
TheHill.com
White House
hopeful Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.) on Saturday previewed his upcoming plan to cancel all
past-due medical debt.
Sanders, who will unveil the plan in full
next month, has made the country’s health care costs a focal point of his
progressive policy proposals.
Sanders's plan would cancel $81 billion in
existing past-due medical debt, repeal parts of the 2005 bankruptcy reform bill
and ensure that unpaid medical bills do not impact one’s credit score. Sanders
has hit the 2005 bill for eliminating "fundamental consumer
protections," accusing it of making it difficult for Americans
to pay back medical debt by imposing stringent means tests.
“In the United
States of America, your financial life and future should not be destroyed
because you or a member of your family gets sick,” Sanders said in a news
release previewing his plan.
"That is unacceptable. I am sick
and tired of seeing over 500,000 Americans declare bankruptcy each year because
they cannot pay off the outrageous cost of a medical emergency or a hospital
stay," he continued. "In the wealthiest country in the history of the
world, 42 percent of Americans should not be losing their entire life
savings two years after being diagnosed with cancer."
Americans borrowed an estimated $88 billion
to cover medical expenses in the 12 months before the April release of a Gallup and West Health report.
Health care has
emerged as one of the chief fault lines in the crowded Democratic presidential
primary, with 2020 contenders debating the merits of a "Medicare
for All" platform, the role of private insurance plans and the staying
power of the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Three top-tier contenders — Sanders, Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) — have proposed varying forms of Medicare for
All.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, who leads the field of White House hopefuls in several national
polls, has panned the single-payer proposals, suggesting instead that the
federal government should expand the 2010 ACA to include a public option.
THERE IS MUCH TOO MUCH POLLING ON ELECTIONS
IN GENERAL AND NOT ENOUGH HONEST STUDY AND THOUGHT. I’M LESS INTERESTED IN
TRYING TO GUESS/PREDICT/BET ON THE OUTCOME THAN I AM IN TRYING TO TRACK THE
NEWS ARTICLES AND BALANCE THEM WHEN I CAN, AND ADDING SOME INFORMATION FOR
VOTERS TO READ IN MAKING THEIR DECISIONS. THIS IS A FAIRLY PRESENTED ARTICLE.
THE WRITER IS NOT TRYING TO KNOCK DOWN BERNIE SANDERS AS SO MANY OF THEM SEEM
TO BE DOING. I ALSO AM FASCINATED BY THE HEBREW DATE ON THE ARTICLE. SINCE THEY
ARE TOTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO ME AND VERY INTERESTING, I HAVE PUT A LITTLE ABOUT IT
DOWN BELOW THIS ARTICLE.
August 31, 2019.
Av 30, 5779*
Analysis
Can Bernie
Sanders Really Win? After This Week, It Seems More Possible Than Ever
Alexander
Griffing SendSend me email alerts
Aug 31, 2019 5:21 PM
The Democrat’s
plan to save the planet – and journalism – and his Trump-busting credentials
vis-Ã -vis Warren give him some ammunition
PHOTOGRAPH -- Bernie
Sanders addresses a town hall gathering in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, August
29, 2019. Meg Kinnard / AP
RELATED:
Democratic
presidential hopeful Bernie
Sanders faces two major roadblocks in his bid for the nomination: the
perception that he can’t beat Donald
Trump in a general election and fellow senator Elizabeth Warren’s
quest for his share of the party’s progressive left. But this week, Sanders
appeared to make significant strides in overcoming both challenges.
The Vermont
senator put out two new policy proposals this week; one is a $16 trillion
version of the congressional resolution the Green New Deal geared toward
weaning Americans off oil, natural gas and nuclear energy. The second is a
proposal to save journalism.
Sanders published his plan in The Columbia
Journalism Review, outlining his desire to undo moves by the Trump
administration that have made media mergers easier. He wants to freeze all
major media tie-ups until their effects can be studied, and he aims to protect
local news outlets and independent media from corporate consolidation.
“In the spirit of existing federal laws, we
will start requiring major media corporations to disclose whether or not their
corporate transactions and merger proposals will involve significant journalism
layoffs,” Sanders writes.
Meanwhile, the Brooklyn-born candidate says
his $16 trillion federal investment to fight climate change would, in 10 years,
facilitate the transition to publicly-owned clean electricity, create 20
million new jobs and address pollution’s baleful affect on poor communities.
But while
progressives may get excited about Sanders’ policy proposals, moderates and
establishment Democrats still worry that he can’t beat Trump. In an early-August poll by Quinnipiac University, only 12 percent
of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said Sanders had the best
chance to beat Trump, while 49 percent said Biden.
Luckily for
Sanders, this number is only 9 percent for Warren. Sanders is battling the
wonky Massachusetts senator who releases detailed policy proposals that one-up
her rival from Vermont. As a result, Sanders releases new, ever-more ambitious
proposals of his own.
Bumbling
Biden
Both Warren and
Sanders are being helped by former Vice President Joe Biden’s famous gaffes,
with both the media and Trump questioning whether he’s fit for the top job. Biden
still has a commanding lead over his two main rivals to the left, but the two
upstarts are rising in the states that vote early in the primaries.
The week kicked
off with a shocking new poll by Monmouth University showing a tie between
Warren and Sanders for first, with Biden a point behind them. Still, while that
survey sent the media into a frenzy, Patrick Murray, the university’s polling
chief, said the poll showing Biden’s support dropping 13 percent was an “outlier.”
Sanders also benefits
from being a known commodity with an approval rating that has remained in the
mid-50s since his loss to Hillary Clinton in 2016, while his disapproval rating
remains in the 30s. Those numbers shine compared with Trump’s net disapproval
over the long term and Clinton’s unfavorable figures in 2016.
RealClearPolitics’ average of national polls has Biden at 28.9 percent with 17.1 percent for Sanders
and 16.5 percent for Warren. In New Hampshire, where Sanders stunned Clinton by
22 points in 2016, it’s a different story. Biden at 21 percent leads Sanders and Warren at 19 percent and 14 percent respectively.
In Iowa, Biden
is beating Warren 26 percent to 18 percent, with Sanders at 14 percent. But
Warren has surged in Iowa in recent months, drawing ever larger crowds.
Either way,
while polling this far out should always be taken with a bit of skepticism, the
fact that Sanders is already so well known gives these polls more credibility
than usual.
Speaking about
the unpredictability of the 2020 race, Sanders’ campaign manager,Faiz Shakir,
told The Associated Press that while winning New Hampshire is important,
Sanders could still lock up the nomination without the Granite State.
“But if it
doesn’t happen – again, go through the hypotheticals – is there a chance he
could still win?” Shakir asked. “Yeah. There’s still a chance he could win.”
Facing Trump
Both Sanders
and Warren have received a boost in recent weeks by new polls showing that they
handily beat Trump in the general election. An August 28 Quinnipiac University poll has Biden
defeating Trump at 54 percent to 38 percent. For Sanders it’s 53 to 39 percent,
and Warren 52 to 40 percent.
The poll also
found that California Sen. Kamala Harris and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg
beat Trump by nine points. Even as Biden, Sanders and Warren dominate the
surveys for the time being, there are still many months for another candidate
to break through. A Pew Research Center poll from May found that only 3 percent
of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents believe that it’s best to have
a president in his or her 70s. (Biden, Sanders and Warren are all in that
bracket.)
If the
Democratic race remains a three-way tie, the possibility of Sanders emerging as
the first Jewish presidential nominee of a major party gains traction. Biden,
hobbled by his long, mixed voting record as well as those gaffes and questions
about his fitness, could leave a wide opening for Warren and Sanders.
And while Warren may be Sanders’ most
dangerous competition, her emergence as a major rival changes the conversation
regarding the November 2020 election. After all, a Warren-Trump race is seen as
a tougher challenge for the Democrats. In this sense, Sanders might have the
chance to emerge as the safer choice for the Democrats.
Av 30, 5779*
To view Shabbat Times click here to set your location
Shabbat,
August 31, 2019
Jewish History
On the last day
of Av of the year 2448 from creation (1313 BCE), Moses carved, by G-d's
command, two stone tablets -- each a cube measuring 6x6x3 tefachim (a
tefach, "handbreadth", is approximately 3.2 inches) -- to
replace the two divinely-made tablets, on which G-d had inscribed the Ten
Commandments, which Moses had smashed 42 days earlier upon witnessing Israel's
worship of the Golden Calf.
THIS IS THE CONTENT OF BERNIE’S OUTLINED
MEDICAL DEBT RELIEF PLAN. IT INVOLVES A MODIFICATION OF THE 2005 BANKRUPTCY LAW
WHICH RESTRICTED THE CITIZEN’S ABILITY TO GET MEDICAL DEBT REMOVED IN
BANKRUPTCY. THE FULL FORM IS PROMISED SOON.
Sanders teases plan to eliminate billions in medical debt
Proposal still in the works
By:
Annie Grayer, CNN
Posted: Aug
31, 2019 04:31 AM PDT
Updated: Aug
31, 2019 05:37 AM PDT
Photograph -- Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Getty Images
(CNN) -
Sen. Bernie Sanders announced late Friday that he plans to
eliminate billions in medical debt, hinting at a proposal the 2020 presidential Democratic candidate's campaign has yet
to release in full.
The plan, which
the Sanders campaign says would cancel $81 billion in existing past-due medical
debt and make changes to the 2005 bankruptcy bill, is not expected to be
released in its entirety for another month. The proposal -- which is still in the
works, separate from the senator's "Medicare for All" plan and meant
to address debt under the current system -- does not explicitly state how
Sanders will eliminate medical debt, but says, "under this plan, the
federal government will negotiate and pay off past-due medical bills in
collection that have been reported to credit agencies."
Sanders'
announcement came during a health care-focused town hall in Florence, South
Carolina, in response to a question from an audience member on how he would
address the issue. The campaign was still developing details of the plan
when Sanders hinted at its release Friday night, but released an outline
Saturday after the Vermont senator was asked about the issue directly.
A woman at
the town hall stood up and asked, "Is there anything in your plan that
would actually work for people that are drowning right now for their medical
debt?"
"We're
looking at that right now," Sanders responded. "In another piece of
legislation that we're going to be offering we will eliminate medical debt in
this country. I mean, just stop and think for a second. Why should people be
placed in financial duress? For what crime did you commit? You got a serious
illness? That is not what this country should be about."
Sanders
campaign manager Faiz Shakir told CNN on Friday that "Sen. Sanders had
previously asked us to pull together a plan to finally end the crisis of
medical debt, and when asked directly about it tonight he was honest and candid
in previewing his thinking on this important matter."
The one-page
overview cites medical debt as "the leading cause of consumer
bankruptcy," and states: "We are sick and tired of seeing 530,000
Americans declare bankruptcy each year because they cannot pay off the
outrageous cost of a medical emergency or a hospital stay."
"In the
wealthiest country in the history of the world, 42 percent of Americans should
not be losing their entire life savings two years after being diagnosed with
cancer," the outline continues.
Those figures,
which have also been used by Sen. Elizabeth Warren's campaign, have been
challenged and could not immediately be validated by CNN.
The outline explains that the full plan will
address the components of the 2005 bankruptcy bill that "made it much more
difficult to discharge medical debt" and "trapped families with
medical debt in long-term poverty." It also promises to "make sure
that no one's credit score is negatively impacted by unpaid medical
bills."
Later
Friday, Sanders elaborated on his thinking while speaking with reporters at a
nearby street party following the town hall.
"In the
midst of a dysfunctional health care system, what we have got to do is say that
you cannot go bankrupt. You cannot end
up in financial distress, because you're terribly sick. That's cruel, and that
is something we've got to end," Sanders said.
This story
has been updated.
WHEN YOU HAVE SOME TIME TO FOCUS ON WHAT
SANDERS BELIEVES, HAS CONSIDERED, AND HAS ADVOCATED, GO TO THIS WEBSITE. IT IS
SANDERS’ VIDEO SITE AND GOES BACK THE 30 YEARS HE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN
GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING HIS YEARS AS MAYOR OF BURLINGTON, VT.
THESE ARE EXCELLENT BERNIE SANDERS VIDEOS,
LINKED ONE AFTER ANOTHER. THEY SHOW WHAT I LIKE ABOUT BERNIE. HE IS CONCERNED
ABOUT NOT JUST THREE OR FOUR CAREFULLY PICKED ISSUES, BUT AT LEAST A DOZEN. HE
IS WHAT I CALL A LIFELONG LEARNER, A CREATIVE THINKER AND HE KEEPS UP WITH THE
U.S. AND WORLD NEWS AS NEW MATTERS OF CONCERN UNFOLD, UNLIKE A CERTAIN
PRESIDENT WHO IS SKETCHY IN HIS KNOWLEDGE OF BASIC INFORMATION.
THAT’S WHY BERNIE SHOULD BE PRESIDENT.
CONGRESS AND THE SENATE MAKE THE LAWS, BUT WHAT LAWS THEY CHOOSE TO MAKE IS
CRUCIAL. BERNIE CARES ABOUT PEOPLE, NOT JUST A MINORITY GROUP OR A FINANCIAL
CLASS, BUT ALL CITIZENS. IS HE “SAFE?” NO, BUT HE IS FASCINATING AS I SEE HIS
INNER SELF UNFOLD, AND IT IS THE 1% AND THEIR WANNABES WHO CONSIDER HIM TO BE
SO VERY UNSAFE.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THOUGH, HE IS FOR AMERICA,
NOT FOR THE CORPORATIONS AND FINANCIAL CENTERS. TO HIM, WAR AND BEING EVER MORE
DOMINANT DON’T MAKE US GREAT, BUT SERVING PEOPLE AND PRESERVING OUR EARTHLY
HOME FOR LIVING CREATURES DOES, INSTEAD. WATCH HIS VIDEOS HERE AND YOU WILL SEE
WHAT I FELL IN LOVE WITH (INTELLECTUALLY SPEAKING, OF COURSE).
Comments
Post a Comment